Summary: We found fault by Transport for London on Miss Y’s complaint about it failing to accept responsibility for the problems she experienced when trying to renew her 60+ London Oyster card. It failed to give her information about alternative methods of payment and delayed sending her a new card. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained about Transport for London (the authority) failing to accept responsibility for problems with its system which prevented her from renewing her 60+ London Oyster photocard in January 2023: as a result, her card was cancelled, she had to buy a new one, and lost out financially as, until she received it in July, she had to pay for travel. It also caused her a great deal of stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information Miss Y sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, along with the authority’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the authority. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss Y complained over a seven-month period, she made several attempts to pay the authority for the revalidation (renewal) of her 60+ London Oyster photocard (the card) through its website. She claimed she had until 14 January 2023 to do this but, the authority had told her the deadline was in December 2022 which she missed. I have seen no evidence of the authority telling her the deadline was in December.
7. Miss Y provided a copy of an email she received from the authority. Although undated, it confirmed she had until 14 January 2023 to provide proof of her current London borough address and pay the £10 address check fee to keep using her card. Failure to do this would lead to it stopping her card.
8. Miss Y also provided a copy of an error message she received on 13 January. The authority said Miss Y only made contact on 14 January to alert it to the problems she had renewing it. At this point, it was too late to renew her card.
9. While the records showed the authority was in contact with her in December, no details of it were provided.
10. The renewal fee was £10, and Miss Y said despite trying to renew it, and calling, she was unable to do so. Instead, she received error messages when she tried to do it online. She said she was told she could not pay any other way. She also claimed the authority told her she needed a validation letter from the Post Office, which was incorrect. The authority said it had no evidence of staff telling her she needed this letter from the Post Office.
11. The records showed she was told in mid-January 2023 she could not renew her card as she had missed the deadline, and she needed to apply for a new card which would cost £20. She was told to complete the form on its website which she did several days later and received an ‘error’ message. I have seen examples of the error messages she received which stated there was an ‘error loading that payment option’ and she should try again later or try another option. It did not explain what the other options were.
12. One of the error messages showed she tried a renewal, and two were attempts to get a new card because the fee she tried to pay was double the renewal cost.
13. Towards the end of the month, the records showed she spoke to the authority about revalidation issues and the ‘wrong app’, which I assumed meant the wrong application.
14. In March, the authority wrote to her acknowledging her contact in late January and the ‘glitch’ she experienced renewing her card. It explained the revalidation process could be done either: online on her photocard account; calling its helpline and by getting a revalidation letter issued which she would need to take to the Post Office on the anniversary of her card. Applicants had a six-week period to revalidate their card. It also explained hers had been cancelled and she now needed to make a new application.
15. In May, she spoke to a member of staff who agreed to take her payment over the telephone. This was for a new card, not a renewal. She was told it would take 5-10 working days to receive it. Miss Y said she never received the new card.
16. She called the authority again in July and was told it had not received her card, so another was ordered. She received it a week later. While the authority said this was a failure of delivery by a third party, it provided no evidence to show it was issued or there was a delivery failure.
17. Miss Y complained it took months to get this problem resolved, during which time she suffered stress and financial loss as she had to use a ‘pay as you go’ Oyster card which charged higher rates for fares. She also had to pay £20 for the new card. She asked for a printed copy of her travel and payment history from January to July, but this was not successful either.
18. When she complained, the authority explained it could not issue a refund from January 2023 as the new application was made in May. Interim fares were refunded from the 10th working day on which a card was not received which meant she could claim £122.50 for the period 16 June to 20 July. She was asked to send clear copies of receipts from July but the receipts she provided had faded. The offer was based on her current use.
19. Miss Y calculated her total loss as about £612 from January through to June.
20. The authority confirmed:
1. it had no record of her attempts to pay but accepted she provided screenshot evidence of error messages she received;
2. she received the error messages because it was at a time when it moved to a different payment provider which had several issues. These have since been fixed;
3. there was no action she could have taken at the time to avoid them;
4. she could have uploaded proof of her address and paid the revalidation fee online on her photocard account or, called its customer service line and asked for a revalidation letter to be sent to her. Once received, she could complete the process at the Post Office. While it claimed this letter was sent to her in January, I have seen no evidence of this letter;
5. she could not make a payment over the telephone for revalidation of her card as the revalidation documents needed checking;
6. it had no record of costs on her ‘pay as you go’ Oyster card as it only stored eight weeks of recent journeys on them. During this period, she could access and download this information; and
7. she was advised she needed to make a new application for a photocard as it could no longer revalidate it because she failed to do so within the deadline. Miss Y disputed this saying she tried on two occasions before the 14 January deadline.
21. The authority confirmed its previous offer and offered a further £10 refund of her fees.

My findings

22. I make the following findings:
1. I have seen no evidence of the authority telling Miss Y she needed a revalidation letter from the Post Office. She was told to get a revalidation letter issued to her and take it to the Post Office. I found no fault on this complaint.
2. I am satisfied the deadline given to Miss Y was 14 January 2023. I am also satisfied she attempted to renew her card the day before which was not processed due to a system error.
3. Miss Y was told in mid-January that renewing her card was no longer an option and she had to apply for a new one. The evidence showed she tried to make payment the same month for the renewal of her card but, due to glitches with the authority’s system, was unable to do so. She completed an online form, which was after the deadline had passed, and tried twice to apply for a new application. She tried to pay £20 on each of these, the cost of a new card. These payments failed.
4. I am also satisfied the evidence showed Miss Y tried to apply for a new card towards the end of January but was unable to do so because of computer glitches. I saw no evidence of further attempts that month to make a payment.
5. I am satisfied there was a failure by the authority to give her clear information about alternative methods of payment when it gave her the error messages. This was fault.
6. The evidence shows she was not told the letter/application she sent in January was ‘inaccessible’ until March, almost two months later. This delay amounted to fault. The same month, the authority again told her she could not renew her card but had to apply for a new one.
7. I have seen no evidence she was told she could apply, and pay, for a new card over the telephone until May. As she previously alerted the authority to the difficulties she had with making a payment, it could have explained there were alternatives, which included the telephone, before May. I am satisfied the failure to do so, in these circumstances, amounted to fault.
8. When she did apply over the telephone in May, the card was not sent to her within the 5-10 working days she was told. It was sent to her the week after she chased it about the new card. The authority provided no evidence to support its claim the card was issued, and the problem was a failure to deliver it by a third party. This delay was fault.
9. I am satisfied the identified fault caused Miss Y an injustice. Had she been told about different payment options in January, after her failed attempt to apply for a new card, it was more likely than not she would have received her new card the same month or in early February. This meant she would have had her card for about four months earlier than she did. She suffered some financial loss during this period as a result. There were delays when she applied for a new card and in telling her about her inaccessible earlier application. She also had some distress in the form of frustration and inconvenience trying to resolve the problem.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also considered Miss Y’s own actions which contributed towards the overall delay.
24. The authority agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Miss Y a written apology for failing to: give her advice about alternative payment options sooner; deal with her application without delay.
2. Pay her £100 for the distress caused.
3. The authority will pay Miss Y £539. This amount included the £122.50 previously offered (period 16 June to 20 July) along with £416.50 (February to May). The amounts are based on the difference between what she would likely have paid during these periods, had she been issued with a new card promptly, and what she was likely to have paid on her pay as you go card.
4. Pay her the offered £10 difference between the renewal fee and new application fee.
25. The authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I found fault on Miss Y’s complaint against the authority. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman